A Ride to Remember

I have been doing some reminiscing (and some writing) about the early days at the Lowry Park Zoo. I love this photo of my son Jason and the story it tells, as he sits atop Buke – a massive male Asian elephant.

The Lowry Park Zoo, at that time, had one 24 year old Asian elephant named Sheena, who had been donated to the zoo in 1961 by the Park’s namesake, General Sumter L. Lowry, Jr. The new master plan had been designed around her and the building she inhabited, but in order to build her new facilities, she would need to be moved to another zoo for a few years. After searching far and wide, we found a good facility at African Lion Safari near Toronto Canada that would take her. They had proper facilities, other elephants, and a highly competent staff. All we had to do was figure out how to get her there. I described the process in my article for the Zoo’s newsletter in the fall of 1985.

Though highly trained, Sheena had not been handled in over ten years. She had become quite unmanageable and even dangerous to those who worked around her. But after a few days with the experienced elephant handler, Charles Gray, she was performing all of her old tricks and even seemed to enjoy the change in routine and the companionship of her handler. The next problem was how to get her out of the enclosure. So complete was Sheena’s incarceration, that there was not even a gate into her enclosure. Our friendly workmen moved in with their cutting torches and bulldozers, and after nearly an hour of cutting the heavy iron rails, an opening was made in the pen.

The next problem we faced was the uncertainty of Sheena’s reactions to her new found freedom. Would she respond to her handler’s commands, or would she run away at the first opportunity? The moment of truth arrived. As Sheena walked out of her pen for the first time in nearly 15 years, it became obvious that she was happy to be outside and yet very responsive to her handler.  She quickly gained his confidence, and was soon allowed to wander happily around and explore the zoo she had lived in for most of her life. The rest of her loading and transporting was so uneventful as to appear routine. But that was not the end of the story.

In order to make transportation less traumatic, another elephant was brought from Canada to keep her company. A large male Asian elephant named “Buke” became the first elephant ever to share Sheena’s enclosure. Though she was coy to his advances at first and turned her back whenever he came close, she soon warmed up and remained close by his side as they explored the zoo grounds.

Buke seemed gentle enough, responding to his handlers like an anxious child, as the two elephants wandered the property untethered. It never occurred to me, as I placed my son on his back and snapped a picture, that Buke might have a dark side. But the next time I saw him was at his home in Canada later that summer. He was in musth (a period when bull elephants are sexually active and very aggressive) and chained to a tree – ready to kill anyone who came too near.

The Battle Over Killer Whales

If you want to know how vehement and even hostile people are in opposition to SeaWorld, just read the comments at the end of the recent editorial in the LATimes, What to do about SeaWorld's captive killers.

The State of California was considering a bill that would phase out killer whale shows, an idea that has gained greater popularity thanks to the 2013 documentary Blackfish, but the bill did not pass because it went “too far too fast” according the editorial.

 The article seemed pretty even-handed to me. “Legislators,” it warned, “should keep in mind that requiring SeaWorld to suddenly shutter its signature attraction could destroy the rest of the marine park's business. Though animal rights activists might think that's fine, SeaWorld has invested heavily in its killer whale program and done so legally. In the absence of documented animal abuse, the company shouldn't be stripped of its most valuable assets overnight.”

One of the problems I see in the arguments over killer whales (as well as apes and elephants) in captivity is that there doesn’t appear to be any room for compromise. While there are legitimate concerns over welfare of killer whales and I might even be convinced they should not be kept in captivity, that does not mean we should eliminate places like SeaWorld. The amount of good done for wildlife by zoos and aquariums is immeasurable. The ultimate irony in all of this is that people wouldn’t even care about killer whales if it wasn’t for the work done by SeaWorld.

People need to lighten up on their attacks on SeaWorld and on zoos and aquariums in general. And zoos and aquariums may need to listen to the people. “The next step, according to the editorial, “might well be the prohibition of captive breeding as well as a ban on bringing new killer whales into the state. SeaWorld would have years to devise a new headline draw while continuing to show its existing whales, but the public would know that, at least in California, an outmoded way of viewing the magnificent marine mammals is coming to a close.”

Seems like sound advice. I wonder if anybody is listening.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-killer-whales-ban-california-20140408,0,7980414.story#ixzz2yLojsEqL

Copenhagen Zoo in the news - again

The killing of four healthy lions by “euthanized injection” at the Copenhagen zoo has sparked another round of debate in the zoo community and beyond.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/copenhagen-zoo-euthanizes-four-healthy-lions/

Two of the lions were older adults and the other two lions were cubs that were too young to fend for themselves. The Copenhagen zoo explained in the media that they euthanized the animals to make room for a younger generation of lions.

I have been seeing a microcosm of the debate on a LinkedIn forum in which I participate. Here is a sample of some of the comments that have been exchanged between participants. See if you can guess the origins:

In zoos our primary role is to educate visitors, we need to show all aspects of nature. Nature does contain both life and death.

Nice try Mr. _____. This is horrific zoo management devoid of animal ethics. If the zoo opted to have the lions they had, they had an obligation to hold onto them or place them until they died of natural causes.

The giraffe in Copenhagen was euthanized in order to avoid inbreeding. Should we just neglect the effects of inbreeding on animal and population health? It is never taken lightly to euthanize an animal, but should the public not know what goes on in the zoo? We need to be open and honest about what we do. The world might be connected through the web, but the public in Denmark are supportive of what we do here. I must ask why is it so hard to accept that cultural differences exist, you don't need to try to convert everyone to what you feel is right.

If the Copenhagen Zoo feels like it is not getting the support that it should, from other zoos, perhaps it's because their lack of public relations sensitivity has put a lot of zoos in defensive mode... UNNECESSARILY!

( Australia) This is a subject that is difficult to deal with without emotions takes over. Except of course if we talk about food production animals which for whatever irrational reason are not a concern, despite their welfare frequently are totally compromised. What I really do appreciate from Copenhagen Zoo's standpoint - regardless of my own opinion - is that they have been totally consistent and rational in their approach for a long time, and as a result have a lot more credibility than writers of some of the ridiculous un informed comments seen in the wider discussions around this issue. Anyone who seriously believes that they do not care about their animals are sadly mistaken.

Sorry, can't agree that Copenhagen has been rational. Your opinion. Not mine. And again, have to disagree, zoo administrators do make decisions based on bringing in money; babies make money. And quite subjective to say that reproduction is necessary part of captivity: in my opinion, rationalization to make babies to make money. Copenhagen and credibility in one sentence: that's amusing. And please don't try to snow your audience with "regardless of my opinion": what each of us writes is of our opinion.

I find it very disturbing that the main drive in the arguments against the Danish and European Animal Management is based on the fear of how the public react.

I have left out some of the more personal, mean-spirited exchanges, but you get the idea. This reminds me of some of the Republican – Democrat debates over ObamaCare or the debates over gun-rights. Strong opinions on both sides and both sides convinced they are right! This is the subject I intend to tackle in my book.

Forty years of memories

Do you know where you were on this date, forty years ago? I do. I was a young, senior zoo keeper hired the previous fall as one of the original keepers for the new Metro Toronto Zoo. According to my diary entry for March 13^th, 1974, I was helping TB test 17 white-tailed deer. The operation was part of a bigger challenge that began on 8 January 1974 when a female blackbuck antelope died of tuberculosis (TB) in our outdoor holding facility. This began a long-running quarantine and numerous TB tests of the animals – and of the keepers, since TB is one of the many zoonotic diseases that can be passed between animals and humans.

The Tuberculin skin tests that I saw used consisted of an intradermal injection of a tiny amount of purified culture filtrate of Bovine TB under the skin in such a manner that a pea-sized bump was produced. After 2-days, the vet would need to inspect the site of the injection to see what, if any, reaction had occurred. If the test was positive, we would see what appeared to be an allergic reaction – redness and marked swelling – at the site of the injection. In hoofed stock, finding a bare patch of skin can be a challenge. In most cases, the veterinarians preferred the bare patch of skin under the tail around the anus, an area known as the Caudal Fold. A test in this area was not visible unless the animal was caught a second time to have the tail raised for a visual inspection. Another site for testing was in the skin of the upper eyelid. This method was almost always used in primates, and on a few occasions in hoofed stock. The results of the eyelid test were obvious without a second capture. One of the challenges is that a positive reaction does not necessarily mean they have TB, just that they have been exposed to it and have antibodies in their system. Diagnosis based on these clinical signs alone is very difficult, even in advanced cases.

All of the animals in the areas that had housed the blackbuck had to be tested, so on Monday, March 4^th, 1974, we began the testing with a male wapiti (elk) and a male roe deer. The following day we caught and tested four reindeer, two muntjac, and seven Chinese water deer. All of these animals tested negative when they were caught-up two days later. The next Monday, on March 11^th, we tested seven yak, three tahr, and one male barasinga deer. The female barasinga, according to my notes, was not tested because “the dart glanced off front knee” – meaning she did not go down. The following day we tested ten white-tailed deer and the female barasinga deer and on Wednesday, we tested seventeen more white-tailed deer.

The method of catching and restraining these animals varied. The larger and the more “flighty” animals were shot with tranquilizer darts. Some of the animals could be cornered and physically grabbed and restrained while others were caught in large hoop-nets. Of the ten deer we caught on Tuesday, for example, my notes say we caught two by hand, four in nets, and four of them were tranquilized. These procedures did not always go as planned. One of the white-tailed deer jumped into the pen next door that housed the Pere Davis’s deer and, on two occasions, deer jumped out of their pen and into a perimeter area in which they were still contained.

On Monday, March 18^th, we tested eight blackbuck and, on Thursday of that week, we tested six Pere David’s deer and one mule deer. After nearly three weeks, we had caught, tested, and read the results on nearly seventy animals, which equals 140 captures with remarkably few casualties. All animals to this point tested negative.

On Tuesday, April 30^th, our luck changed. We tested a male and three female European bison and when the tests were read on Friday, the male’s test was “suspect” and one of the females was positive. They were re-tested the following week with a more sensitive test in the eyelid instead of under the tail, and the male and two of the females were positive. We had not seen any signs of tuberculosis since the initial diagnoses in the female blackbuck, but now we were in for a long period of quarantine, treatments and endless testing. Unfortunately, I was transferred to a different area and have no record of what happened afterwards.

1974 was an eventful year for me. My two little boys, Mike and Jason were just 2 ½ years and 10 months old respectively. We had moved from the balmy, gulf coast of Florida to spend our first winter in Canada and I was in the midst of opening one of the largest zoo operations in the world. For a zookeeper, much of the work can be mundane – cleaning cages and feeding animals – but there was nothing mundane about those early days at the Toronto Zoo. We received new animals on a weekly basis – many of which I had never even heard of. We were catching, crating, uncrating, and moving animals around on a daily basis and, at one point, I found myself on a Polish freighter in the middle of the North Atlantic with a load of animals bound for Canada. So from now until the 40^th anniversary of the opening of the zoo in August, I would like to remember some of those times.